alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10M67.

#### Edward J. Motion, Petitioner v. N. Grannis.

562 U.S. 1197, 131 S. Ct. 1061,

178 L. Ed. 2d 861,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 927.

January 24, 2011.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
July 23 , 2015

Mr. B ruce D. Taylor

4501 Shadycreek Lane

Colleyville, TX 76034

Dear Mr. Taylor :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your May 1 1 , 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

-

1556 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, h ow it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional i nformation, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any ques tions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

B rittany N ewton

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### *State, Petitioner, v. Porter, Respondent,*

No. 92060-5.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45796-2-II, July 14, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1051. *Granted*January 6, 2016.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

HELIOPS, LLC 

Complainant 

NORWOOD MEMORIAL AIRPORT; 

NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION 

Respondents 

Docket No. 16-09-10 

PAFmet)OCKETS 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

The Complainant, Heliops, LLC ("Heliops"), respectfully moves, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

16.209, for an extension of time to today, December 4, 2009, to file a Reply Brief, a copy of 

which is submitted herewith. As good cause therfor, Heliops states as follows: 

1. The Respondents' Answer is forty pages long, and makes numerous arguments 

and factual assertions that required time and consideration to properly respond to; 

2. The Complainant's principal had been traveling, which had limited his ability to 

consult with counsel as to the various statements contained in the Answer, which included 

allegations of misfeasance by Heliops; 

3. The Complainant's counsel was reluctant to render a full response to the Answer 

because they did not wish to unduly tax the Complainant's limited resources, and wished to 

ascertain whether there might be an alternate source of funding, including the Aircraft Owners 

and Pilots Association. The Complainant is still awaiting notice regarding possible funding; 

4. The Respondents will not be unfairly prejudiced by this submission, as it simply 

responds to the arguments made in the Answer, and is brief and confined to only a select number 

of salient points; 

5. The Reply Brief will assist in the determination of this matter. 

For the foregoing reasons, Heliops, LLC respectfully requests leave to file the 

accompanying Reply Brief on today's date, December 4th, 2009. 
Respectfully Submitted, 

HELIOPS, LLC, 

By its attorneys, 

Kevin C. Cain^CB^O #550055) 

Timothy M. Pomarole (BBO #660827) 

Peabody & Arnold LLP 

Federal Reserve Plaza 

600 Atlantic Avenue 

Boston, MA 02110 

(617)951-2100 

kcain@peabodyarnold.com 

tpomarole@peabodyamold.com 

December 4th, 2009 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Timothy M. Pomarole, certify that on December 4th, 2009,1 served a copy of the foregoing 

document by first-class mail and e-mail to: 

Michael C. Lehane, Esquire 

Brandon H. Moss, Esquire 

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP 

300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410 

Quincy, MA 02169 

mlehane@mhtl.com 

bmossCSimhtl.com 

Timothy 

PABOS2:TPOMARO:714131_l 

15483-93949
USDOJ Seal 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Legal Counsel 

Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530 

June 11,2009 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Re: Withdrawal of Office of Legal Counsel Opinion 

Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of Executive Order 13491 (2009) set forth restrictions on the use 

of interrogation methods. In section 3(c) of that Order, the President further directed that "unless 

the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, 

employees, and other agents of the United States Government may not, in conducting 

interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation . . . issued by the 

Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009," We have previously 

noted that this direction encompasses, among other things, four opinions of the Office of Legal 

Counsel, which we withdrew on April 15, 2009. See Memorandum for the Attorney General, 

from David J. Barron, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: 

Withdrawal of Office of Legal Counsel Opinions (April 15, 2009). We have now determined that 

it also encompasses another opinion of our Office. See Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Acting 

General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, from Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Application of the War Crimes Act, 

the Detainee Treatment Act, and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to Certain 

Techniques that May Be Used by the CIA in the Interrogation of High-Value al Qaeda Detainees 

In connection with the consideration of this opinion for possible public release, the Office 

has now reviewed this additional opinion and has decided to withdraw it. It no longer represents 

the views of the Office of Legal Counsel. 

David J. Barron 

Acting Assistant Attorney General
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 1 106 Lower Tribunal No. 2021 C C

- 006402

- 0000

- 00

_____________________________ I CE R AK , LLC
, Appellant
,

v.

A NTONE D. M OODY , M ARIA “R IA ” M ARTINEZ , M ARIA M ARTINEZ , A UGUSTA D. M OODY , L A Q UINTA D IONNE R ORIE , B RITTANY P LUMMER , J ENNIFER R OBINSON , B AILEY V EA a/k/a B AILEY O LIVER and H ANNAH M ILLIGAN , Appellee s

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the C ounty Court for Polk County

. Kevin M. Kohl
, Judge.

December 26, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED

.

STARGEL
, NARDELLA and SMITH, JJ. , c oncur.
Ramil A. Kaminsky and Jacquelyn M. Codd
, of Rak Law Firm , PLLC, Lakeland, for Appellant.

Jesse A. Haskins
, of J. Haskins Law, P.A., Tampa for Appellee s , Antone D. Moody and Maria Martinez

.

Andrew S. Kanter
, of Law Office of Andrew S. Kanter, Tampa, for Appellees
, Bailey Vea a/k/a Bailey Oliver and Hannah Milligan.

No appearance for remaining Appellees
, Maria “Ria” Martinez, Augusta D. Moody, LaQuinta Dionne Rorie
, Brittany Plummer, and Jennifer Robinson.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
B-F2125E (5/23)

©2023 Magellan Health, Inc.

July is BIPOC Mental Health Awareness Month

Setting boundaries for healthy 

relationships

Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) are at risk of experiencing unique trauma due to 

mental and emotional injury from a variety of causes.

If you have experienced such trauma, you may find that your relationships are impacted. Consider these strategies to 

protect and manage your closest relationships and all that are important to you. 

Prioritize needs

Take the time to think through where you stand, what 

you can and cannot tolerate, and what makes you feel 

happy or uncomfortable.

Anticipate resistance

Expect that others may not easily understand 

your boundaries, especially if they have different 

backgrounds or personalities. 

Communicate boundaries

Clearly and directly let others know of your 

boundaries and reiterate them if you feel they are 

being overstepped.

Distance yourself if necessary

If you feel disrespected or have your boundaries 

crossed repeatedly, it may be time to cut off further 

interactions to protect your emotional wellbeing.

Sources: 

Mental Health America, 

Psychology Today, 

Inclusive Therapists

Help is available. Your Employee Assistance Program is completely confidential and available 24/7/365.

Visit MagellanAscend.com or call 1-866-580-9046 (TTY 711) to get started.
# C_2014024EN.01003302.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/33

---

Action brought on 22 November 2013 — BlackRock v OHIM (SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY)

(Case T-609/13)

2014/C 24/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BlackRock, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 572/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 572/2013-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 11 144 748

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-245.

#### In re The Travelers Indemnity Company, et al., Petitioners.

562 U.S. 1059, 131 S. Ct. 644,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9331.

178 L. Ed. 2d 517,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3505-3506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1741]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

19 CFR Parts 201 and 207


Proposed Amendments to Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hearing 
Regarding Five-Year Reviews

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On October 23, 1997, the Commission published proposed rules 
to establish procedures for the conduct of five-year reviews of 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements 
(62 FR 55185). The notice of proposed rulemaking indicated that the 
Commission would hold a hearing concerning the procedural matters 
discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking as well as 
methodological and analytical issues relating to five-year reviews. The 
hearing will include panel discussions on topics of significant 
interest. Interested persons with similar viewpoints are encouraged to 
consolidate testimony. After reviewing the requests, the Commission 
will notify participants of panel assignments and time allocations. The 
Commission will

[[Page 3506]]

accommodate as many requests to participate as time permits. For 
further information concerning hearing procedures and rules of general 
application, consult Part 201 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR part 201).

DATES: The hearing will be held on February 26, 1998, beginning at 9:30 
a.m. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with 
the Secretary to the Commission no later than ten (10) days after the 
date of publication of this document and should identify the specific 
topics the requestor wishes to discuss.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade 
Commission Building at 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vera Libeau (202-205-3176), Office of 
Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information 
on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-
1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special 
assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the 
Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning 
the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server 
(http://www.usitc.gov or ftp://ftp.usitc.gov).

    Issued: January 20, 1998.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1741 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Charles HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Dr. JENKIN, Tommy Reddish, Louise Cason, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-8813

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

July 1, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. No. CV-698-11), William

T. Moore, Judge.

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that "[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § ] 1983 ..., or any other federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any ... prison ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a). This provision applies in this case because the prisoner, the appellant, filed his complaint after the

PLRA's effective date.

Appellant is an inmate in the Georgia state prison system. He seeks both monetary and injunctive

relief on the ground that appellees, or one of them, violated his Eighth (and Fourteenth) Amendment right

to be free of cruel and unusual punishment by refusing him needed medical treatment. Because appellant

seeks such relief, section 1997e(a) required that he exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing suit.

Appellant has invoked the prison system's administrative process; he has done so by filing a

grievance. His grievance has been denied, however, because it was untimely. Appellant could appeal such

denial (within the prison system); he contends, however, that appeal would not be heard (because his

grievance was untimely). Given this circumstance, his argument continues, he has exhausted his

administrative remedies and, thus, the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. We disagree.
2

As the district court noted in disposing of this case, Georgia State Prison Inmate Grievance Procedure

No. 503.1 allows the grievance coordinator to waive the time period for filing a grievance if "good cause"

is shown. Since appellant has not sought leave to file an out-of-time grievance, he cannot be considered to

have exhausted his administrative remedies. If we were to accept appellant's position—that the filing of an

untimely grievance exhausts an inmate's administrative remedies—inmates, such as appellant, could ignore

the PLRA's exhaustion requirement and still gain access to federal court merely by filing an untimely

grievance.

In sum, we affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant's complaint without prejudice for failure

to exhaust his administrative remedies.

AFFIRMED.
Administrative Office: 2700 “M” Street, Suite 302, Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 

Phone (661) 862-5250 – Fax (661) 862-5251 

www.kernair.org – ekapcd@co.kern.ca.us

Glen E. Stephens, P.E. 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

astern Kern 

Air Pollution Control District 

 E

April 21, 2014 

Mr. Patrick Au 

Air Resources Board 

Stationary Source Division 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95815 

SUBJECT: Draft Rule 410.9, Wood Products Surface Coating Operations 

Dear Mr. Au: 

Enclosed is the Rule Action Package for Draft Rule 410.9, Wood Products Surface Coating Operations adopted 

by the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (District) Board of Directors on March 13, 2014. Rule 410.9 

became effective upon Board Adoption. The package is being sent electronically to pau@arb.ca.gov. The 

District requests that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) forward all appropriate documentation to U.S. 

EPA Region IX office as a revision to the District’s SIP. 

The District also requests that ARB update their District Rule database of Rules and Regulations located on the 

ARB website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ker/cur.htm to include Rule 410.9 once it has been approved by 

EPA. 

Included in the Rule Action Package are the following attachments: 

1) Complete Clean Copy of the Rule 

2) Strikeout Underline Copy of the Rule 

3) Certified Governing Board Resolution 

4) Certified Notice of Exemption to the Clerk 

5) Evidence of Public Hearing 

6) Public Comments and Responses (included in Final Staff Report) 

7) Other Materials (Final Staff Report, Certified Board Summary, and Copy of Referenced Rules) 

Rule 410.4, Metal, Plastic, and Pleasure Craft Parts and Products Coating Operations and Rule 410.4A, Motor 

Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing Operations were also amended on March 13, 2014 and Draft Rules 

410.8, Aerospace Assembly and Coating Operations and 432, Polyester Resin Operations were adopted and are 

being submitted as separate packages. Should you have any questions, please contact Jeremiah Cravens AQS II 

Cravensj@co.kern.ca.us or (661) 862-5250. 

Sincerely, 

Glen E. Stephens, P.E. 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

GES:JC
No. 10-6913.

#### Maxine Mager, Petitioner v. Prairie Center Development, LLC.

562 U.S. 1113, 131 S. Ct. 828,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9798.

178 L. Ed. 2d 564,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Statement  of Financial  Condition at June 30, 2000 and the  Statement of Income
for the six months  ended June 30,  2000 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         64,687
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               86,432
<PP&E>                                         78,554
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,183)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 297,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          71,856
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    500
<COMMON>                                       11,089
<OTHER-SE>                                     214,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   297,842
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               246,165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (249,260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (249,260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (249,260)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)



</TABLE>
## .**SE~VED:** 

## June 

## 13, 2014**~·** '.i·,.. t D
...

## 'CN- 

## 0 ·· ''t.,q IIVrLI 

### I 

## F U.S. 

### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION--

## r:·.~{r:~?O.**(~~-RI/~TTIO;L,** OFFICE OF HEARINGS '
.. ll\._ 1

### :t- "'"' 

### IC,··:0

. WASHING.TON, DC

### z;

## 11**~. J·U~**  

### , ..., !m**~~** 

### I b P t.= 

### 08 In The Matter Of: ENDLESS MOUNTAINS AIR, INC., Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. FAA-2013-0848 Case No. 2012EA50008



### NOTICE RE: DISCOVERY EXCHANGES On May 29, 2014 an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. Among other things, this Order stated that "[ d]iscovery requests and exchanges need not be filed with the Office ofHearings, except as part ofa motion
..." (Order, 3**~** B). On June 11, 2014 the Respondent filed with the Office ofHearings a courtesy copy ofthe Initial Disclosures it had sent to the FAA. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.205 (6), Civ. R. 16, and 14 C.F.R. §13.217, the parties are again notified: B. Discovery Requests and Exchanges: Discovery requests. and exchanges need not be filed with the Office ofHearings, except as part ofa motion regarding limited discovery, disputed discovery, or as part ofa motion to compel discovery. For clarifications ofthe court's discovery order or questions with regard to the procedures to be followed in this case, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor, at the Office ofHearings (202-366-6941).

Attachment: Service List

Page 1 of 1SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ORIGINAL & ONE COPY

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Mr. ZacharyM. Berman 

### Complainant's Counsel ONE COPY

Office ofRegional·Counsel, Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAJ(: 718-995-5699 Mr. William J. Dobitsch, Jr. Endless Mountains Air, Inc. 

### Respondent Seamans Airport 727 Windsock Lane Factoryville, PA 18419 FAJ(: 570-945-5953 Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### US. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAJ(: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0848 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. ·